achieve

Lakers center Jaxson Hayes, left, dives for a loose ball next to Knicks forward OG Anunoby in the first half Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Hayes crawled across the floor for loose balls. Marcus Smart stepped in front of driving opponents. Jarred Vanderbilt leaped into the laps of front-row fans.

With energy and focus from every player, the Lakers delivered one of their best defensive efforts of the season despite circumstances that could have made Sunday’s game a snoozer.

The Lakers were playing their third game in four days. Losing an hour of sleep because of daylight saving time had Rui Hachimura sleepwalking into the arena Sunday morning for a 12:30 p.m. tip. Hoping to wake himself up, the Lakers forward said he got into the hot tub when he arrived.

Players tried to hype themselves up in the locker room by blasting music. Instead of listing three defensive keys before the game, coaches whittled the game plan to one focus: multiple efforts.

“It wasn’t gonna be an offensive game,” coach JJ Redick said. “This was gonna be a gritty, tough game that we had to win with effort. And we did that.”

Smart led that effort with a game-high plus-27 in 29 minutes and 17 seconds. He drew two charges. His signature moment didn’t even show up in the game play-by-play. After Luka Doncic turned the ball over with 2.2 seconds remaining in the third quarter, Smart hustled back to force Jordan Clarkson to pass the ball at the buzzer, keeping the Knicks from getting a last-second layup attempt. Smart walked to the bench with his arms extended like a defensive back who had just broken up a touchdown pass.

The Knicks were held to less than 100 points for only the seventh time and had their fourth-worst three-point shooting performance of the season, going eight for 34. The Lakers went nearly five minutes without scoring in the fourth quarter, but held on by forcing eight turnovers.

“It was not a perfect game,” said Doncic, who led the Lakers with 35 points on 11-for-25 shooting. “But we fight at the defensive end. I think we did a great job. It says a lot about the team, bringing this much energy in a game like this.”

There is a school of thought among some fans that a good season is one where your team still has plenty to play for come April.

Liverpool will not be winning back-to-back Premier League titles, but they will head into March still in the FA Cup and the Champions League and now in a strong position to finish in the top five, which would effectively confirm Champions League football next season.

At the end of a week in which the club confirmed record revenues of over £700m for the last accounting year, with a profit after tax of £8m, the importance of that European spot cannot be underestimated.

Midfielder Alexis Mac Allister, who scored Liverpool’s third goal, told Match of the Day: “The last four or five months is when teams show what they can do.

“That’s what we want. We know how important it is to qualify for the Champions League for the club and us as a team. The goal is there and we are going to do everything to qualify and be closer to the teams on top.”

Team-mate Cody Gakpo took a similar view, telling Sky Sports: “It was a good afternoon. Step by step, we’re getting [to be] a better team.

“We had a difficult moment during the season, but hopefully these last few games are the start of something beautiful.”

With consecutive games against Wolves in the league and FA Cup next week, before a trip to Galatasaray in the Champions League, the next 10 days or so will go a long way to shaping how their season ultimately is remembered.

Get through that unscathed and, whisper it quietly, Liverpool fans may well start to genuinely believe that they can do something beautiful indeed.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, six frigates, three light warships, and approximately thirty fighter jets and support aircraft have entered the Middle East by order of Donald Trump who, by repeatedly touting the slogan “I have ended six/seven/eight wars,” has considered (and continues to consider) himself deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. What objective do all these tensions that the U.S. administration has generated in the region actually pursue? The weakening of Iran, or the overthrow of the incumbent government? Whatever his and his administration’s aim may be, it appears that—within the cost–benefit calculations of his trader’s mindset—he has yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to what kind of blow, and at what scale, could deliver the desired outcome. His recent military posturing around Iran and his increasingly threatening rhetoric against the Islamic Republic have placed him in a no-win situation whose end few can predict.

Why a no-win situation for Trump?

First Strike Doubt: Trump and the constellation of officials currently in the White House—who, notably, are far from unified or aligned on how to approach Iran—have reached no certainty regarding the effectiveness of a first strike against Iran or the likelihood of achieving their desired results. It is evident to all that the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither Venezuela, nor Libya, nor Syria, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor anything akin to the historical cases in which the United States has intervened militarily in the name of democracy verbally and in pursuit of its own interests operationally. This very reality has, thus far, prevented Trump from issuing the order to “open fire” on Iran up to now.

On the other side, there is no sign of the flexibility or concession sought by the United States in the behavior or rhetoric of Iranian officials—a fact acknowledged by American officials themselves. This indicates that pressure, intimidation, and threats have thus far yielded no results. The reason is clear: the Islamic Republic views any potential confrontation as an existential war and is unwilling to grant any concessions. Trump, however—who seeks to manufacture achievements out of even the smallest events and whose penchant for exaggeration is among his defining traits—perceives such circumstances as detrimental to his personal prestige and standing.

Iran’s Resilience: The experience of the Israeli attack and the hybrid war launched against Iran in June 2025, with direct assistance from the United States and indirect support from so many others, demonstrated that the instability they sought within the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and even the internal social fragmentation and rifts that had been cultivated for years through various media tools did not materialize. Despite the blows inflicted on Iran, none of the long-term strategic objectives of the United States and Israel were achieved. Likewise, the unrest and riots of January 8 and 9, despite the violence and damage they caused to the public and the state, were ultimately brought under control and culminated in a multi-million-person rally on January 12 condemning the unrest and supporting the central government of the Islamic Republic.

High costs and Persian Gulf Worries: Operationalizing a military threat would impose heavy costs on the United States and its allies. The Islamic Republic has explicitly declared that any military action against its territory, at any scale, would be regarded as all-out war, and that, consequently, the entire region—as well as U.S. interests wherever they may be—would fall within range of Iran’s retaliatory strikes. This serious warning has also prompted Persian Gulf states to mobilize their capacities to dissuade Trump from attacking Iran. The strikes on U.S. bases at Ayn al-Asad and Al-Udeid entrenched the perception that the Islamic Republic does not shy away from responding to foreign aggression, even if large segments of the world regard the attacking state as a “superpower.”

Global Energy Risks: The ignition of war in the Persian Gulf would amount to a grave threat to global energy supply routes. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of liquefied natural gas are supplied by Persian Gulf countries, and 20–25 percent of global crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz. Any aggressive action by the United States would jeopardize the security of one-fifth of the world’s fuel and profoundly affect the global economy.

Although the U.S. National Security Strategy does not place the Middle East among America’s top strategic priorities, the same document states that: “We (the United States) want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the forever wars”, which shows Persian Gulf oil is still of high importance for Washington.

Tilting Power Balance: In addition, heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf would endanger China’s economic interests, and any large-scale military confrontation would likely lead to a more pronounced military-security presence by Russia and China in the Gulf—tilting the balance in favor of America’s rivals.

And finally?

The embers beneath the region’s ashes today could be ignited by the slightest breeze, engulfing a vast area. Israel, while likely the first target of Iran’s retaliatory response in the event of a U.S. attack, is nevertheless eager to initiate confrontation based on the calculation that a war waged with the full might of the United States could ultimately erode the very existence of the Islamic Republic or weaken it to the point of capitulation. In this context, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the disclosure of new documents and details concerning Trump’s links to the notorious Epstein case and his mysterious island may have been driven by the Mossad, as such revelations could compel the U.S. president to undertake an irrational action to divert attention elsewhere.

Today, Trump is acting more than ever in contradiction to his own professed principles—from trampling on his signature MAGA slogan and morphing it into MIGA (Make Israel Great Again), to undermining his administration’s efforts to reduce unnecessary international expenditures; from his paradoxical pride in having ended “eight wars” to the strategy of off-shore balancing the Middle East. Should a war of this magnitude and consequence erupt, no country involved—whether through direct action or geographic proximity—would be spared its consequences. Regarding these circumstances, it appears that the only desirable scenario for Trump, the region, and the world at large is the opening of a genuine dialogue, free from the shadow of threats, intimidation, and American bullying.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump is set to hold his first “Board of Peace” summit in Washington, DC, an event where the US leader likely hopes to prove the recently launched panel can overcome scepticism – even from those who signed on in support – in the face of months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Gaza.

The summit on Thursday comes nearly three months to the day since the UN Security Council approved a US-backed “ceasefire” plan amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which included a two-year mandate for the Board of Peace to oversee the devastated Palestinian enclave’s reconstruction and the launch of a so-called International Stabilization Force.

Disquiet has surrounded the board since the November security council vote, with many traditional Western allies wary of the US administration’s apparent wider ambitions, which some have viewed as an attempt to rival the United Nations in a Trump-dominated format.

Others, including countries that have already signed on as members, have raised concerns about the board’s fitness to effect meaningful change in Gaza. Several regional Middle East powers have joined the board, with Israel becoming a late, and to some, disconcerting addition in early February.

As of Thursday’s meeting, the board still has no Palestinian representation, which many observers see as a major obstacle to finding a lasting path forward.

“What exactly does Trump want to get out of this meeting?” Yousef Munayyer, the head of the Israel-Palestine programme at the Arab Center Washington DC, questioned.

“I think he wants to be able to say that people are participating, that people believe in his project and in his vision and in his ability to move things forward,” he told Al Jazeera.

“But I don’t think that you’re going to see any major commitments until there are clearer resolutions to the key political questions that so far remain outstanding.”

‘Only game in town’

To be sure, the Board of Peace currently remains the “only game in town” for parties interested in bettering the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, Munayyer explained, while simultaneously remaining “extremely and intimately tied to the persona of Donald Trump”.

That raises serious doubts over the board’s longevity in what is likely to be a decades-long response to the crisis.

“Regional players that have a serious concern over the future of the region and concern over the genocide have no choice but to really hope that their participation in this Board of Peace allows them to have some leverage and some direction over the future of Gaza in the next several years,” Munayyer said.

He assessed the greatest opportunity for member states who “understand the challenges and understand the context” would be to focus on “what realistically can be achieved in the time period … to focus on the immediate needs and address them aggressively”. That includes health infrastructure, freedom of movement, making sure that people have shelter, pushing for an end to ceasefire violations, to name a few, he said.

At least 72,063 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, with 603 killed since the October 11, 2025, “ceasefire” went into effect. Nearly the entire population of 2.1 million has been displaced, with more than 80 percent of buildings destroyed.

For his part, Trump, who has previously envisioned turning Gaza into a “Middle East Riviera”, struck a positive tone ahead of the meeting. In a post on his Truth Social account on Sunday, Trump touted the “unlimited potential” of the board, which he said would prove to be the “most consequential International Body in History”.

Trump also said that $5bn in funding pledges would be announced “toward the Gaza Humanitarian and Reconstruction efforts” and that member states “have committed thousands of personnel to the International Stabilization Force and Local Police to maintain Security and Peace for Gazans”.

He did not provide further details.

Meanwhile, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is a member of the panel’s so-called “Gaza executive board”, unveiled the clearest vision yet of Washington’s “master plan” for Gaza in January.

The plan, assembled without any input from Palestinians in Gaza, outlined gleaming residential towers, data centres, seaside resorts, parks, and sports facilities, predicated on the erasure of the enclave’s urban fabric.

At the time, Kushner did not say how the reconstruction plan would be funded. He said it would begin following full disarmament by Hamas and the withdrawal of the Israeli military, both issues that remain unresolved.

Pressure on Israel?

As the US administration stargazes over sweeping construction plans, it is likely to face a starker reality when it meets with a collection of the 25 countries that have signed on as members, as well as several others that are sending observers to the meeting, according to Annelle Sheline, a research fellow in the Middle East programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Any progress to show the board’s “proof of concept” would all-but-surely require asserting unilateral pressure on Israel, she noted.

“Trump is hoping to have countries back up his claim about the $5bn, to get actual commitments on paper,” Sheline told Al Jazeera.

“This is probably going to be challenging, because – especially the Gulf countries – have been very clear that they’re not interested in financing another reconstruction that’s just going to be destroyed again in a few years.”

Israel’s decision to join the board, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had initially opposed, has piqued concerns about further influence over US policy. An act of good faith by the US to advance a more lasting peace could be the inclusion of a Palestinian official on the board, Sheline added.

She proposed widely popular Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti, who is continuing to serve consecutive life sentences in Israel, as a possible candidate. His release, she said, could be an example of an area where Washington could use its leverage to immediate effect.

In the shorter term, “[interested member states] are largely waiting for the security situation to resolve. Israel violates the ceasefire daily and moves the yellow line”, Sheline said, referring to the demarcation in Gaza behind which Israel’s military was required to withdraw as part of the first phase of the “ceasefire” agreement.

Indonesia’s government has said it is preparing to commit 1,000 troops to a stabilisation force, which could eventually grow to 8,000. But any deployment would likely remain delayed without better ceasefire guarantees, she said.

“It’s still an active warzone,” Sheline added. “So it’s very understandable that even Indonesia, which has hypothetically said it would contribute troops to the stabilisation force, is likely going to say we’re not actually going to do that until the situation is stable.”

An opportunity?

Ensuring an actual ceasefire is enforced – including creating accountability mechanisms for violations – remained “by far the most critical” task for the board’s inaugural meeting, according to Laurie Nathan, the director of the mediation programme at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Trump’s Board of Peace is “not going to be able to play a meaningful reconstruction role in the absence of stability in Gaza, and stability requires adherence to the ceasefire”, he told Al Jazeera.

The next key step – and a major development that could come from Thursday’s meeting – would be a commitment of troops, although Nathan noted any deployment would still likely be deadlocked until a voluntary Hamas disarmament agreement is reached.

On the face of the situation, Trump would appear increasingly incentivised to use Washington’s considerable leverage over Israel to foster a stability in Gaza that the president has closely aligned with his own self-image.

After all, Trump and his allies have regularly portrayed the US president as the “peacemaker-in-chief”, repeatedly touting his success in conflict resolution, even if facts on the ground undermine the claims. Trump has been vocal in his belief that he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, “Trump’s motivation is multifold,” Nathan explained.

“Does he care about peace? I think he does. Does he want to be a peace broker? Yes. Does he genuinely want the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes.”

“On the other hand, he is performative … it’s never quite clear how much of it is serious for him,” he added. “The further problem is that personal interests are always involved when Trump is doing these things.”

Wider ambitions?

Both Washington’s Western allies and experts in conflict resolution have scrutinised what appears to be the yawning scope of the Board of Peace, far beyond the Gaza purview approved by the UN Security Council last year.

A widely reported founding “charter” sent to invited countries did not directly reference Gaza as it took digs at pre-existing approaches to peace-building that “foster perpetual dependency and institutionalise crisis rather than leading people beyond it”. Instead, it envisioned a “more nimble and effective international peace-building body”.

Critics have further questioned Trump’s singular and indefinite role as “chairman” and sole veto-holder, which largely undermines the principles of multilateralism intended to be enshrined in organisations such as the UN. They have argued that the structure fosters a transactional approach both in dealings with the US government and Trump as an individual.

Richard Gowan, the programme director of global issues and institutions at International Crisis Group, said those concerns are unlikely to subside any time soon. Still, he did not see that precluding European countries from supporting the board’s effort if it is able to make meaningful progress.

“I think, in practical terms, you will see other countries trying to support what the board is doing in the Gaza case, while continuing to keep it at arm’s length over other issues,” he said.

Thursday’s meeting could indicate the Board of Peace’s dynamic and tone going forward.

“If Trump uses his authority under the charter to order everyone around, block any proposals he doesn’t like, and run this in a completely personalistic fashion,” Gowan said, “I think even countries that want to make nice with Trump will wonder what they’re getting into.”

“If Trump shows his mellower side. If he’s actually willing to listen, in particular to the Arab group and what they’re saying about what Gaza needs, if it looks like a genuine conversation in a genuine contact group,” he added, “that won’t erase all the questions about the board’s future, but it will at least suggest that it can be a serious sort of diplomatic framework.”